Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9323169" data-attributes="member: 42582">Certainly, if the GM gets to adjudicate/enforce alignment.There is an additional thing, too, which is a point I made (I think more than once) in the &quot;narrativist 9-point alignment&quot; thread.Good, as defined across Gygax's PHB and DMG, encompasses all the major post-enlightenment accounts of human wellbeing/flourishing: Benthamite consequentialism; human rights; dignity; common good; etc.And evil is also clearly explained, as being an attitude, and accompanying behaviour, that recognises none of those things as a constraint on the pursuit of self-regarding desires.So the alignment system simply has nothing interesting to say about the debate between (say) utilitarians and Kantians; or between those who believe in &quot;supreme emergency&quot; in just war theory, and those who don't.The question of what to do with Goblin babies may or may not be an interesting one - I tend to think that it's poorly framed, at least in the versions of it that I see people talk about - but it's not one on which the alignment system sheds any light. I mean, the hero who kills the Goblins is pursuing some sort of conception of the good (say, a consequentialist one, or a common good one) and is not acting on a self-regarding desire. So they are not evil, and plausibly are good, within the framework of alignment as presented.A table who wants to debate whether or not they did the right or wrong thing will thus receive no guidance from the alignment framework; and a GM who wants to impose their own moral vision - as per your post - is not implementing a game rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9323169, member: 42582"] Certainly, if the GM gets to adjudicate/enforce alignment. There is an additional thing, too, which is a point I made (I think more than once) in the "narrativist 9-point alignment" thread. [I]Good[/I], as defined across Gygax's PHB and DMG, encompasses all the major post-enlightenment accounts of human wellbeing/flourishing: Benthamite consequentialism; human rights; dignity; common good; etc. And [I]evil[/I] is also clearly explained, as being an attitude, and accompanying behaviour, that recognises none of those things as a constraint on the pursuit of self-regarding desires. So the alignment system simply has [I]nothing interesting to say[/I] about the debate between (say) utilitarians and Kantians; or between those who believe in "supreme emergency" in just war theory, and those who don't. The question of what to do with Goblin babies may or may not be an interesting one - I tend to think that it's poorly framed, at least in the versions of it that I see people talk about - but it's not one on which the alignment system sheds any light. I mean, the hero who kills the Goblins is pursuing some sort of conception of the good (say, a consequentialist one, or a common good one) and is not acting on a self-regarding desire. So they are not [I]evil[/I], and plausibly are [I]good[/I], within the framework of alignment as presented. A table who wants to debate whether or not they did the right or wrong thing will thus receive no guidance from the alignment framework; and a GM who wants to impose their own moral vision - as per your post - is not implementing a game rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification